Since Greece is a linguistically closed domain, translations of literary texts exist only for utilitarian aims and appear mainly in the peripheral areas, such as Egypt, where the contacts between ... [more ▼]

Since Greece is a linguistically closed domain, translations of literary texts exist only for utilitarian aims and appear mainly in the peripheral areas, such as Egypt, where the contacts between languages and civilizations are close. As a result the Greek meta-language for translating is relatively poor and appears late in the history of the Greek language (especially during the Hellenistic and Roman periods). First, the family of ἑρμηνεύς (ἑρμηνεία, ἑρμηνεύω) designates the most genuine process of translation and involves a technical and scientific precision. We find mentions of interpreters (ἑρμηνεῖς) in Herodot and Xenophon. Translation is also considered from another point of view: ἑρμηνεύς is also the prophet. Indeed, the verb ἑρμηνεύω involves not only a translation but also an explication of the text. On the other hand, in classical Greek, the most generic and most widespread verb for translating is μεταφέρω. There are a lot of other compound verbs with the prefix μετα- (“change”) with different uses and senses: μεταβάλλω, μεταγράφω, μεταφράζω. The situation in Rome is quite different. It is not exaggerated to say that Rome is a civilization of translation. The first literary works in Latin are translations of Greek models. Throughout the history of Latin literature, from Livius Andronicus until Boethius, there have been translators. On the other hand, there is no theory of translation among the classical Latin authors. The only classical Latin author who presents such a theory is Cicero in a passage of the short treatise De optimo genere oratorum (14-15) written in 46 BCE. In this text, which can be considered one of the first theoretical writings on translation, Cicero uses some verbs and expressions meaning “to translate”. Cicero conceives translation according to two different points of view expressed by two Latin words: interpres/orator. The term interpres (in the etymological sense of “broker”) is to be understood in a neutral sense: it points out the translator as a simple intermediary who gives exact correspondence between the words from one language to another without taking into account the sense of the whole sentence or text. On the other hand, orator has a positive connotation. Cicero increases the importance of the activity of the orator because he tries not to replace one word with another, but instead to conserve two characteristics of the words, genus and uis. This theory will be developed by Christian authors, like Hieronymus, who translates the Bible. As a result, the Latin verbs to say “translate” are generally based on metaphors: a linear movement from one point to another (interpretari from interpres) to designate the literality of the translation, and a circular one (uertere), as in sanskrit vŗt “to turn”, for the liberty of the translator orator who translates, but also creates a new literary work. [less ▲]